That would be a nice concept if it woud be possible to implement. To do this Apple would need to build data centers in each city and send only SD feeds. Netflix, which is a single feed stream is already choking the internet. Forget about feeding multiple HD feeds to large quantities of household, its just not possbile.

Apple already are streaming HD movies to anyone who rents them. The internet has yet to die.
Most TV is much more heavily compressed.

There's a gaming service called "onLive" - it lets users play video games, which are running on PCs in a data centre. It does this by streaming video (at quite high definitions and high frame rates) from the data centre to each user. Impossible as this sounds, it works today. And we can assume that within 18months, Moore's law will let it work twice as good.

That would be a nice concept if it woud be possible to implement. To do this Apple would need to build data centers in each city and send only SD feeds. Netflix, which is a single feed stream is already choking the internet. Forget about feeding multiple HD feeds to large quantities of household, its just not possbile.

Netflix, is wreaking havoc on the entire Internet, and is forcing ISPs everywhere to re-think their download polices.

I'm sorry, but the net is just not ready for the type of traffic that a 100% let's-get-it-right-the-first-time service that Apple needs to deliver. Everything needs fiber optics first. Then DL limits will not be an issue. So, that leaves over the air. I really can't see how that's going to work. The cable and telcos will protect that turf until they die.

So Apple, I'm curious, but skeptical.....

I would love to break the shakes on my state run censorship cultural restrictions, but I don't see it happening any time soon, and certainly NOT in 2012!

That would be a nice concept if it woud be possible to implement. To do this Apple would need to build data centers in each city and send only SD feeds. Netflix, which is a single feed stream is already choking the internet. Forget about feeding multiple HD feeds to large quantities of household, its just not possbile.

netflix uses Level 3 to stage the content on the ISP's networks. you are not going to the internet to watch anything, only for the authentication. and even then it's to Amazon's cloud which is all around the world.

Apple uses akamai for OS X updates. maybe for the itunes store as well. same concept as level 3. they store the content around the internet on the ISP's local networks and point you to a local copy of the content

$1 per channel per month? I don't see that happening. Remember, you're going for Ã* la carte pricing which means you pay a premium. Lets say right now your cable company has 100,000 customers all subscribing for a particular base channel station. Now you want to pay $1/month for it but it's an unpopular channel and only 5,000 (5%) want to subscribe to it. That means they are only getting $5/month from the cable company. The station was also getting hefty advertisement payments but now that the subscriber rate has dropped advertisers have dropped out completely. The station has gone under because the environment that made it work is no longer supporting it. You've now lost a channel.

I bet people watch plenty of channels and don't realize how much they watch them or that a particular show is on a channel. Can an Ã* la carte method sustain the future of television networks or will umbrella companies have to consolidate shows differently in order to make a buck? Will we see CBS split NCIS an NCIS: LA — two shows with high ratings — to different channels to maximize the number of stations you rent per month? Will they even go so far as to move a popular show across multiple channels week to week to maximize their return?

What people are wanting is to destroy something that will make it more expensive for customers unless you watch very little TV. Only those that want some select show or two on some cable network could possibly benefit from getting rid of the cable TV model.

Then you have consider how this will affect your cable interest costs. If your cable company loses 1/2 of it 100,000 TV paying customers they still have to pay all the networks the same amount of money. So do they double the costs of their loyal TV viewing customers? Not without losing more TV viewing customers that way. They have to jack the prices on your internet service, they now throttle users speeds, they now put in upper level caps. You're also using more internet than before because that is where your content is coming from. Can you blame them for trying to protect their business? I can't.

I don't think the model would be that a customer would pay a fixed amount per channel. Rather, what I see happening is a certain amount for X number of channels, of your choice, and a little more for a few more channels and more still for even more. So, for example, if you pay for a 30-channel package, you pick the 30 channels and pay let's say $20 a month for said channels. If you want 40 channels, its $25 a month and if you want to go up to 50 channels it's $30 a month. So you consider what channels you want and pick the package that allows you to have them.

My numbers are strictly to illustrate what I mean.

You are right, though, that the cable operators are justified in charging for additional bandwidth use because they have to maintain the infrastructure to provide that bandwidth. As such Apple's pricing model must factor in that additional expense. If Apple can make money while charging a low enough rate to make it worthwhile to consumers, then this makes sense. If, on the other hand, by the time you pay for additional bandwidth, you still pay what you did, clearly this can't work.

Remember, though, that Apple's cost to deliver content would be lower than the average cable operator because of the sheer scale that Apple operates with. Also, Apple doesn't need to have the same sort of infrastructure in place to deliver content because the service provider is taking care of one aspect of that process. That the provider gets a piece of the action for doing so is not unreasonable and neither does it mean that the consumer gains nothing.

Apple already are streaming HD movies to anyone who rents them. The internet has yet to die.
Most TV is much more heavily compressed.

There's a gaming service called "onLive" - it lets users play video games, which are running on PCs in a data centre. It does this by streaming video (at quite high definitions and high frame rates) from the data centre to each user. Impossible as this sounds, it works today. And we can assume that within 18months, Moore's law will let it work twice as good.

Its works with low volumes only... its impossible to implement with a large client base that would stream multiple HD feeds all the time. Distribution of feeds in volume requires an distributed architectures and only internet providers can do this...

This is the best explananation I could find on the wiki:

"Depending on the network architecture of the service provider, there are two main types of video server architectures that can be considered for IPTV deployment, centralized, and distributed.

The centralized architecture model is a relatively simple and easy to manage solution. For example, as all contents are stored in centralized servers, it does not require a comprehensive content distribution system. Centralized architecture is generally good for a network that provides relatively small VOD service deployment, has adequate core and edge bandwidth and has an efficient content delivery network (CDN).

Distributed architecture is just as scalable as the centralized model, however it has bandwidth usage advantages and inherent system management features that are essential for managing a larger server network. Operators who plan to deploy a relatively large system should therefore consider implementing a Distributed Architecture model right from the start. Distributed architecture requires intelligent and sophisticated content distribution technologies to augment effective delivery of multimedia contents over service provider's network.[3"

I don't think the model would be that a customer would pay a fixed amount per channel. Rather, what I see happening is a certain amount for X number of channels, of your choice, and a little more for a few more channels and more still for even more. So, for example,

I'd expect to see something like the app store. A channel store, where subscriptions can be added (or removed).

Remember, though, that Apple's cost to deliver content would be lower than the average cable operator because of the sheer scale that Apple operates with. Also, Apple doesn't need to have the same sort of infrastructure in place to deliver content because the service provider is taking care of one aspect of that process. That the provider gets a piece of the action for doing so is not unreasonable and neither does it mean that the consumer gains nothing.

All good points, but I question Apple's scale if they are only supplying three sizes of TV. This limits their potential customer base in many ways. If they offer an AppleTV box that can hook up to any TV or projector then you have a low cost box that will work with your current setup. This seems like the best position for Apple if they wish to attempt this move.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

netflix uses Level 3 to stage the content on the ISP's networks. you are not going to the internet to watch anything, only for the authentication. and even then it's to Amazon's cloud which is all around the world.

Apple uses akamai for OS X updates. maybe for the itunes store as well. same concept as level 3. they store the content around the internet on the ISP's local networks and point you to a local copy of the content

been this way since the 1990's

It can be done for fixed content but not live feeds. A full IPTV implementation would choke the entire ISP network between the servers and the households. There are no other ways than multicast and distributed servers from inside the ISP network for large amount of clients.

Put simply, they broadcast all channels to local servers close to the households. Streaming occurs only locally. On top of that there is a broadcast feed with 10 secs of all channels that is used for PiP in the guide. Its also used to feed the first seconds after you select a channel so you dont have to wait for the stream to kick in. Its a very complex system.

It took years and billions of dollars to Bell Canada to come up with a system that works.

And on the netflix side, the traffic is already so bad that its now #1 before peer2peer. Bell announced they will no longer nerf peer2peer downloads and are thinking of choking Netflix trafic if the loads on the network affects internet performance of other clients.

All good points, but I question Apple's scale if they are only supplying three sizes of TV. This limits their potential customer base in many ways. If they offer an AppleTV box that can hook up to any TV or projector then you have a low cost box that will work with your current setup. This seems like the best position for Apple if they wish to attempt this move.

Whatever package Apple would offer would be accessible not only via the rumoured Apple TV but also via any device that currently works with iTunes. The Apple TV would be the most integrated, elegant way of accessing the content in question.

Don't be surprised if the way this service was rolled out would be to announce it as an expansion of what is available via iTunes and then at the same announcement in the best one-more-thing Apple tradition, bring forth the Apple TV.

If Apple restricted the new service to only it's TVs, content providers would simply not be interested. Right now the installed base of such a product is zero and at launch it would still be zero. Being as the Apple TV would no doubt cost more than your average set, adoption would be rather slow and the subscription service for TV would simply not have the critical mass to survive.

Instead, the TV service will be an addition to iTunes, which is well-established with millions of devices out there able to access it, including any PC with an Internet connection. The Apple TV itself would be a good companion piece and as such its market penetration would not be a factor.

I very much look forward to what Apple has in mind but being as I live in Canada, I suspect I will not have access to this service in calendar 2012. I would think that 2012 will see an American rollout and here in Canada this option will be there come 2013. I was planning to buy a new TV November 2012 and I might just hold off if what Apple is going to offer makes sense.

Are we so sure Apple is planning on blowing up the Cable model in 2012? Sure, they likely will later. But the Cable model is only one half of the problem.

The other problem that currently plagues TVs is that they are dumb displays that are clunky, unintuitive, and require a plethora of remotes and a non-user friendly method of switching inputs.

If Apple partnered with, say, Comcast or even made it so the AppleTV accepts cable/satellite like normal TVs but presented the various inputs in a truly smart and user-friendly manner, that alone would be cool. Having a full-fledged App Store where you could also buy apps that stream content would also be possible.

That is if the agreement only works on this fabled TV. Which is unlikely. Whatever they do is more likely to be device independent so they would have the collected Apple TV users, iPad, computers etc to work with.

Yeah, because Apple is so well known for bringing new services to older devices... How do you like Siri on your iPad 2? I'm not even mentioning devices that clearly were capable of using it before the 4s launch, but have different hardware specs, the 3biggest differences between the iPad 2 and the 4s are screen, battery, and camera. The only one of those that the 4s is superior in is camera, and none of them directly affect Siri... If Apple does create an actual television, appleTV will NOT be "capable" of all the best functions. If for no other reason than that Apple will want the screen sales. The $2000 tv will need to do more than the $99 stb. PERIOD.
Dim

Six months tops. And that was before their shows became some of the most downloaded of all time. NBC is not dumb enough to walk away from that money

If they have figured out a way for the networks to get more money than before, but it won't happen if they make less than before, which is exactly what is being described by people saying they'd drop their cable/sat in a heartbeat for some Ã* la carte channels.

PS: At least people are realizing that the current distribution method is an obstacle to cross even if they don't understand how. It was only recently that people seem to only consider that Apple owning the HEC was simply putting an AppleTV into a TV.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

This might be Apple's hardest industry to crack. But back in 2001 people said same about digital music distribution. Slowly Apple got them all working out. I just really can't see a COAX cable running straight to the TV and not a cable box. That was like in the 90's. I am still shocked to see that option in modern TVs. A COAX in in the back. Weird.

If you had 50 million American households all watching Internet TV at the same time, multiply that by 300 million TVs all around the world, all watching TV on the Internet at the SAME TIME, the net would crash. This would happen every hour, of every day....... Like I said, the Internet is not react for this yet. Netflix alone is bringing Internet traffic to its knees.

We don't have the Internet infrastructure in place yet to make a world wide Internet TV a practical alternative. Yet. It's still a long way off.

As well, a 32" screen? Really. Is this 1997, because that's what year that screen size belongs to.....

This might be Apple's hardest industry to crack. But back in 2001 people said same about digital music distribution. Slowly Apple got them all working out. I just really can't see a COAX cable running straight to the TV and not a cable box. That was like in the 90's. I am still shocked to see that option in modern TVs. A COAX in in the back. Weird.

I just invested in a high quality exterior OTA antenna and I love the quality of the HD picture. Way better than cable. I still have cable but here in southern California I get a lot of the content OTA. Lakers, Angels, Dodgers, PBS, all the major networks including Telemundo MacTac. In my kitchen, the coax input is the only one I use because I only watch the same morning show everyday. Yes, some of us are using the coax input. I think OTA is a major component of cutting the cord so to speak.

Come on guys ... what TV show isn't formulaic? You either like it or you don't. 13 makes House watchable

Breaking bad
Mad Men
The Wire

Great tv programs aren't formulaic. Mediocre ones for people that don't know good television are. . Not an insult, some people like transformers. I do. But I would never argue its a great movie. It's brain candy. Full of sugar with no substance.

Please please please let this be true. I have wanted this since the first time I signed up for cable/satellite. If I could pay a price, even a freaking $1 per channel I would. I cut the chord just over a year ago and I love it, but I miss some of my old shows that Netflix hasn't picked up on yet. If I could have antenna plus a few channels like History, FX, Comedy Central, HGTV (for the wife), DIY, and some kid channels...I'd be in heaven.

I agree. I'd go for it in a heartbeat. There are only about 10 channels that we watch regularly and maybe 10 others that we watch occasionally. Yet I'm paying for 200 channels that I never use.

However, I don't see it happening. The cable companies and TV studios make their money precisely because people are paying for product they never use. I can't see either the cable companies or the TV studios going for a la carte pricing.

AND, it still leaves the problem of having to deal with the cable company (at least for many people). I can't get DSL here and with our storms, dish is out far too often, so I'd still have cable for my Internet even if Apple were offering an IPTV option. Cox would simply raise my internet price to make up the lost revenue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTac

Too bad Apple isn't willing to think this way regarding a mid range desktop computer. Instead of being able to use the monitor we already have we have to buy an iMac with a built in screen.

It's called a Mac Mini. Plenty fast for you - given that there's no evidence that you do anything with your computer other than troll Apple forums.

You're welcome.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

If you had 50 million American households all watching Internet TV at the same time, multiply that by 300 million TVs all around the world, all watching TV on the Internet at the SAME TIME, the net would crash. This would happen every hour, of every day....... Like I said, the Internet is not react for this yet. Netflix alone is bringing Internet traffic to its knees.

We don't have the Internet infrastructure in place yet to make a world wide Internet TV a practical alternative. Yet. It's still a long way off.

As well, a 32" screen? Really. Is this 1997, because that's what year that screen size belongs to.....

Watching TV is mostly a downstream event. With analog cable it gets pushed to your cable box or TV whether you watch the channel or not. With IP controlled TV the difference is that you request the channel from your cable co. but they already have all channels ready to push to the customer. So whether it's 300 or 300 million the bandwidth for each channel is stilling being sent the way it is with satellite.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I assume they won't offer them at all. But do they really need to? I'd think most who would buy such a product from Apple can figure out how to find porn on the internet.

If Apple includes a web browser then it won't be long before all the adult companies have TV optimized versions of their websites.

Personally I think Apple should add a browser and an AppStore to the existing AppleTV. Let developers start creating apps. We'll probably start seeing TV channels releasing apps. Apple doesn't need to provide content directly, they just need to allow others to do so. Then later on release an integrated TV. It will be a lot easier to sell TVs (which are big ticket items) if Apps are already there.

If Apple includes a web browser then it won't be long before all the adult companies have TV optimized versions of their websites.

Personally I think Apple should add a browser and an AppStore to the existing AppleTV. Let developers start creating apps. We'll probably start seeing TV channels releasing apps. Apple doesn't need to provide content directly, they just need to allow others to do so. Then later on release an integrated TV. It will be a lot easier to sell TVs (which are big ticket items) if Apps are already there.

I agree with the App Store but not so much with the browser. There is simply nothing good about web browsing on a TV. At most I would expert simply AirPlay of website data that you pull up via an iDevice, but I even question that as being useful.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

So whether it's 300 or 300 million the bandwidth for each channel is stilling being sent the way it is with satellite.

Are you suggesting that IP network traffic would not be affected by 300 million users simultaneously streaming TV content over the Internet? It is not at all like satellite. When a satellite transmits a signal there is no router, there are no hops, there are no switches, there are no firewalls. The Internet is a completely different scenario. Even a busy day on Wall Street can slow down the Internet everywhere in the country.

If you had 50 million American households all watching Internet TV at the same time, multiply that by 300 million TVs all around the world, all watching TV on the Internet at the SAME TIME, the net would crash. This would happen every hour, of every day....... Like I said, the Internet is not react for this yet. Netflix alone is bringing Internet traffic to its knees.

We don't have the Internet infrastructure in place yet to make a world wide Internet TV a practical alternative. Yet. It's still a long way off.

As well, a 32" screen? Really. Is this 1997, because that's what year that screen size belongs to.....

More and more content is being streamed across the Internet every single day. You are shouting at the ocean hoping the tide won't come in, but it will. Even if Apple doesn't release a TV, others will. More and more TVs offer Internet services. Games consoles are increasingly being used to watch video.

Are you suggesting that IP network traffic would not be affected by 300 million users simultaneously streaming TV content over the Internet? It is not at all like satellite. When a satellite transmits a signal there is no router, there are no hops, there are no switches, there are no firewalls. The Internet is a completely different scenario. Even a busy day on Wall Street can slow down the Internet everywhere in the country.

it sounds like you're talking about on-demand streaming, not streaming TV. I'm envisioning that shows still air at network specified time. This means that Apple would be pushing all stations to their last server and then each customer would access the content. All downstream.

If you think that all content will be streamed from a central server as the user requests it then high usage of one station would be affect network traffic for the system. But think about that. That's another issue that networks don't want to deal with that is now being added to the mix. They don't like time shifting of their content when they are funded by ads. They want you to watch the shows when they want you to watch them, whether we like it or not. If they could get rid of DVRs (localized time shifting devices) they would, so they aren't going to allow their first run of a program be freely available in HD when you want it. I can see no path that will bring us there until we see Netflix, Amazon, Apple, et al. using their market positions to create a plethora of new shows that can offer on-demand streaming.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Please please please let this be true. I have wanted this since the first time I signed up for cable/satellite. If I could pay a price, even a freaking $1 per channel I would. I cut the chord just over a year ago and I love it, but I miss some of my old shows that Netflix hasn't picked up on yet. If I could have antenna plus a few channels like History, FX, Comedy Central, HGTV (for the wife), DIY, and some kid channels...I'd be in heaven.

While I would like to agree with you, and the idea of ditching my provider for cable is enticing....the issue is cost. They will NEVER EVER EVER EVER move to a $1 per channel model. Think about it, at MOST customers would pay is 150 a month! That is less then what some people pay now and without premium channels! I am actually a little concerned that Apple is moving in this direction. A La Cart cable will only lead to more expensive cable, because they will never truly allow it to be TRUE A La Cart, it will be bundles. Local TV bundle = $15 a month, Extended Cable Bundle (which only includes TBS/SpiktTV/USA/A&E = $20 month (your already paying more than if you have basic standard cable) then you want sports? Sports Bundle = $20 a month includes 10 diffenet Epsn channels/Golf TV/Big Ten....NOT NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA....that is the EXTENEDED sports Package for an extra $15 a month....then there is the cultural living bundle with History Channels/Disc/TLC that is gonna be $15 then there is the food and healthy living bundle with Food network/Bravo....ETC. ETC. ETC. and the problem for users (and the "solution" for providers) will be that you only want one channel from this bundle, and one from that, well, you need to buy both! Case in point, try buying a brand new car with leather seats, and NO SUN ROOF option! They are a package deal!

So IF Apple finds a way around this, then there is the pesky problem that 98% of us have broadband internet at an affordable rate, because we also have CABLE TV! Take away the Cable and my internet jumps to $60 a month! If Apple is planning on bringing this service via internet, then we are still bowing to our ISP's/Cable co.'s! And they will DEFINITELY figure out a way to re-coop costs if Apple does offer an awesome service that gives you basic cable for close to nothing.......look at what AT&T did when Apple introduced iMessage....they killed off tiered text messaging services, and now ONLY offer unlimited for $20 a month, because they knew 99% of us would drop to the $10 - 250 text plan, for our out of iOS device texting friends. The Plain fact is, no matter what happens, Apple may give us a better interface to use it, but we will still pay out the wazoo for a bunch of crap we really don't want.

Watching TV is mostly a downstream event. With analog cable it gets pushed to your cable box or TV whether you watch the channel or not. With IP controlled TV the difference is that you request the channel from your cable co. but they already have all channels ready to push to the customer. So whether it's 300 or 300 million the bandwidth for each channel is stilling being sent the way it is with satellite.

True, but the difference is the way the downstreaming happens. Currently there is no bandwidth issues when millions of people all watch TV from a coax signal. in addition, there are tens of thousands of sources for those coax TV signals, as each cable company is just a simple re-broadcaster of someone else's content. In addition to the millions of people that receive their signals over the air.

Internet streaming is an entirely different beast. There are fewer sources of the content, EVERYONE wishing to view Internet-only content has to watch it on the Internet. That bogs down ISP's, bringing down bandwidth. Add people watching Netflix, playing on-line games, being on Facebook, general computer traffic in general, and you have a recipe for complete net chaos..... ISPs would crash everywhere as a result. The only way for simultaneous Internet traffic to occur, with minimal effects on bandwidth, would be fiber optic.

Right now in a typical household, Dad could be watching football, mom watching something in the kitchen. Junior is listening to Pandora while he's playing COD on line. Sally is on Facebook, chatting on MSN and streaming a TV show in the background. Under the current 2011 model, only two of those people are online using bandwidth.

Under a potential Apple TV ALL of them would be on-line, putting their Internet ISP to the test. Now, multiply that world wide, every hour of every day, because the earth spins and there's always someone somewhere using the net, and you have a recipe for disaster. Only fiber optics allows simultaneous Internet traffic with virtually no effects to bandwidth.

Look at Netflix, that's one service only available to a small part of the world, and it's killing the Internet.

There is nothing good about browsing a web page designed for keyboard and mouse on a TV; however, you can easily craft HTML that works with a TV remote. iTunes Extras is just HTML.

Web code isn't the limitation, it's the way web pages are setup. iTunes Extras are much like DVD/BR menus. They are made to be accessed from a remote.

I just can't see myself typing in URLS or doing a Google search using the on-screen keyboard found in the AppleTV YouTube app. Siri could mitigate much of the effort but i don't think it will be enough and only solves half the problem. You still have the way pages are rendered for the web. Will Wikipedia make an AppleTV version of their site the way they made an iPhone version? Can they even do that seeing as how there are hundreds of links per average page?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

More and more content is being streamed across the Internet every single day. You are shouting at the ocean hoping the tide won't come in, but it will. Even if Apple doesn't release a TV, others will. More and more TVs offer Internet services. Games consoles are increasingly being used to watch video.

Exactly, which is why the current Internet is becoming more and more strained. It needs to be upgraded to fiber optic, and that will take time, and money......

For Apple, it will mean either offering a TV with a missing feature - or changing their moralistic attitude. I am guessing that post-Jobs, Apple might become a little more relaxed about personal choices.

it sounds like you're talking about on-demand streaming, not streaming TV. I'm envisioning that shows still air at network specified time. This means that Apple would be pushing all stations to their last server and then each customer would access the content. All downstream.

Downstream has nothing to do with it. When you send data over the Internet it comes in packets and there is a constant back and forth communication between the client and and the server. Those packets take up bandwidth and time to traverse the Internet. This high volume of data can easily saturate regional networks. Unlike satellite which can be thought of like when you download a movie from the Internet, if you want to watch it again, it is cached and plays instantly. Satellite is like that. Everyone is sharing a single cached version. there is is no traversing the internet, it plays as if you had it stored on your hard drive since it is passing through only space and the Earth's atmosphere with no restrictions or bottlenecks.

As soon as you include the Internet in the delivery mechanism, you have to deal with network bandwidth limitations. Even cable TV through coax has bandwidth limitations. If too many people are watching at the same time the signal can get weak and if you are far away from the last amplifier you will probably experience poor quality and frame freeze ups.

True, but the difference is the way the downstreaming happens. Currently there is no bandwidth issues when millions of people all watch TV from a coax signal. in addition, there are tens of thousands of sources for those coax TV signals, as each cable company is just a simple re-broadcaster of someone else's content. In addition to the millions of people that receive their signals over the air.

Technically downstream can have bandwidth issues on digital coax. I first saw it with the movie Gladiator during an action scene with a lot of extra data. It didn't just affect the channel it was on but also the frequency it was sharing with another channel. This was all last mile stuff.

Quote:

Internet streaming is an entirely different beast. There are fewer sources of the content, EVERYONE wishing to view Internet-only content has to watch it on the Internet. That bogs down ISP's, bringing down bandwidth. Add people watching Netflix, playing on-line games, being on Facebook, general computer traffic in general, and you have a recipe for complete net chaos..... ISPs would crash everywhere as a result. The only way for simultaneous Internet traffic to occur, with minimal effects on bandwidth, would be fiber optic.

If we're talking about all channels being streamed on-demand, but I can only see this being done in the same way cable/sat is currently done, by offering most content at the same time across all distributors. That means that the content is fairly local. Likely using Akamai, as previously noted. Last mile could suffer if too many people are accessing that local server for a specific channel but I wouldn't expect anything close to what can happen from too many people accessing a website at once.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Yeah, because Apple is so well known for bringing new services to older devices... How do you like Siri on your iPad 2? I'm not even mentioning devices that clearly were capable of using it before the 4s launch, but have different hardware specs, the 3biggest differences between the iPad 2 and the 4s are screen, battery, and camera. The only one of those that the 4s is superior in is camera, and none of them directly affect Siri... If Apple does create an actual television, appleTV will NOT be "capable" of all the best functions. If for no other reason than that Apple will want the screen sales. The $2000 tv will need to do more than the $99 stb. PERIOD.
Dim

I'd think apple is ahead of the pack in supporting older devices. Siri would be an exception.

I know there are other instances too. But I think it'd be tough to call it notorious or "well known"